Crime & Punishment

By: Joe Strupp When reporter Jayson Blair and then-top editors Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd resigned from The New York Times as part of the gravest newspaper scandal in recent U.S. history, the fallout spread far beyond the Times' midtown Manhattan headquarters. From Seattle to Orlando, newspapers have been rocked in a variety of ways, from demands for closer scrutiny of reporters to drastic changes in ethics policies.

In the 12 months since May 2003, when Blair quit and his top editors were forced out, a string of ethical lapses at newspapers large and small have emerged ? most famously, the uproar surrounding Jack Kelley at USA Today ? with most accompanied by very public explanations and almost all resulting in the termination of a reporter or photographer (though, rarely, a supervising editor).

Some claim the Blair fallout has been good for newsrooms, and long overdue in view of the need for higher standards of accuracy, ethics and fairness. "As painful as Jayson Blair was, it was a wake-up call to make sure your house is in order," says Greg Moore, editor of The Denver Post, one of numerous papers that either created or expanded ethics policies following the affair du Blair. "We have had about seven or eight months of great ethics

discussions." Even so, ethical controversies appear to be on the rise.

Others worry that a too-harsh spotlight on journalists, and obsessing about the most minor conflicts, could make readers even more suspicious of reporters and spark paranoia among some writers that their work will be probed too closely.

Linda Foley, president of the Newspaper Guild-CWA, fears that newsroom credibility crackdowns may turn into witch hunts, with editors or outside critics looking to exploit even the smallest discrepancy and put reporters on edge to the point where they are afraid to go out on a limb for a story. "There is a real overreaction on the part of newspapers toward their employees," she says. "They are being scrutinized for the most minor things." Reporters increasingly worry about getting the third degree from editors, who may not have exercised the same scrutiny before publishing the story (see related column, page 30).

Union leaders are having to spend more time than ever negotiating new guidelines and ethics codes, often demanding that certain elements be excised. "The key concern is that someone [does] not get fired for some small infraction," Foley says. The Guild president cited several examples in recent months of newspapers that either tried to push through new guidelines without proper reviews or dismissed reporters on fairly weak grounds. In one case, a midwest paper Foley declined to identify fired a reporter for lifting several paragraphs from a Web site for a feature story even though the writer credited the source. Foley said the reporter was later rehired after a guild appeal.

Fred Brown, co-chair of the Society of Professional Journalists' ethics committee, warns that too much focus on ethical lapses could take attention away from other journalistic issues that are just as vital. "More attention needs to be placed on fairness, accuracy, balance and objectivity," he tells E&P. "Newsroom managers ought to use the opportunity to review the whole question of how you do your job."

Another heated debate surrounds the issue of whether liars and fabricators in the newsroom should be given a second chance, or be banned from the business forever.

In any event, the reaction of newspaper executives, editors, and readers in the Year of Blair strongly indicates that the industry will never be the same again. For the repercussions from ethical crimes shake every newspaper's connection to society.

"It is having an impact on the media's ability to appear credible," says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, which represents newspapers and reporters faced with legal challenges. "When a news organization is brought into court, the other side or a prosecutor will say to the judge or jury, 'we know the media lies and has behaved badly.'"

Dalglish pointed to a case in May 2003 involving a Virginia television station accused of incorrectly reporting that cocaine had been seized from the home and business of the plaintiff, who eventually won a $10 million judgment. "They kept throwing around the name Jayson Blair in court," Dalglish recalls. "And we see that all the time."

At the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. ? an institution known for its valued reviews of ethical dilemmas and issues ? inquiries about ethical topics have more than doubled in the past year, according to Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Scholar for Journalistic Values. "There is a lot more interest involving conflicts of interest, and outside work, and Web blogs," says Steele. "I think the increase has been significant."



Liar liar, now you're fired

Jay Shelledy, the former editor of The Salt Lake Tribune, has at least one thing in common with Jayson Blair: Both men lost their jobs on May 1, 2003.

They are also linked in another way, since each was forced out due to ethical lapses. Blair's, of course, was of his own doing, while Shelledy's resulted from the misdeeds of two of his former reporters ? Michael Vigh and Kevin Cantera ? who were fired after selling information related to a story to The National Enquirer and then lying about it. Shelledy's sin was apparently not acting swiftly enough to punish the two reporters and ensure proper damage control.

A year later, Shelledy contends that ethical problems surfacing at other papers create a heightened suspicion. "The consequences five years ago might not have been the same," says Shelledy. "Any time the industry stops to study itself, that is good. But there can be an overreaction. Was it an overreaction to dump Gerald [Boyd] and Howell [Raines]? Probably."

But other editors who have had to discipline reporters and, at the very least, explain to readers how questionable inci- dents occurred, say red-alert awareness and ethics probes are necessary. Several contend that the harsher spotlight does not mean that things have necessarily grown worse, only that they have gotten more exposure.

"It has provided another vehicle for those inclined to think we are part of the liberal cabal to come after us," says Dennis Ryerson, editor and vice president of The Indianapolis Star, which withdrew a job offer from sports columnist Mike Freeman several months ago after discovering that Freeman lied about graduating from college. Although Freeman's sin was hardly Blair-like, some contend that it shows how careful journalists now have to be. "I don't think we can over-inspect," Ryerson adds. "It is good to be more vigilant."

Don Wycliff, public editor at the Chicago Tribune ? which terminated a freelance contract in March with a 16-year foreign correspondent after he admitted fabricating the name of a source ? agrees. "It has made everyone super-sensitive, which is a good thing," he says.

Sherrie Marshall, executive editor of The Macon (Ga.) Telegraph, which fired reporter Khalil Abdullah just days after the Tribune incident for lifting elements of a story, echoes that view. "The Blair situation," she says, "certainly has made editors want to talk about these kinds of issues in a very open way."

Indeed, in both the Tribune and Telegraph cases, as well as others, editors not only cut ties with the ethical scofflaws, but also wrote detailed explanations in the form of columns or articles explaining exactly what occurred. In addition, both newspapers conducted extensive checks on each reporter's past work, finding in each case other examples of improper actions. "The whole corrections and accuracy business has gotten a real boost from this," Wycliff points out.

The New York Times set the bar high following the Blair incident, with a 7,000-word Page One treatise. Since then, editors seem compelled to not only dismiss the wrongdoers, but tell readers exactly why. "I don't hear anyone saying we've gone too far," says Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, who took over for Raines last year. "I think, by and large, it's good."

USA Today, which revealed in March numerous fabrications and ethical misdeeds by former reporter Kelley, also went to great lengths to explain what he did. After Kelley resigned in January, the paper assigned five reporters and an editor to review 10 years worth of his work. The effort resulted in revelations that Kelley not only fabricated stories and lifted quotes, but also lied in speeches and coerced others to lie on his behalf. The paper laid out the details of Kelley's actions in a front-page package of stories that also spanned two inside pages.

"It was entirely appropriate," Alex S. Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, says. "This will do nothing but make reporting better."

USA Today then brought in three of journalism's most respected veterans ? William Hilliard, Bill Kovach, and John Seigenthaler ? to investigate Kelley's work for a report completed last month.

"The Jayson Blair thing reminded us that we owe so much to readers," says Elaine Kramer, managing editor of the Orlando Sentinel. "Not only in our reporting, but also our assessment of our reporting." The Sentinel drew attention in February when it published a lengthy front-page explanation of how reporters had mistakenly omitted certain facts about two people who were depicted in a 2003 series on the dangers of the prescription drug OxyContin.

In an episode that involved no wrongdoing but highlighted an ethical dilemma, the San Francisco Chronicle chose to explain to readers on several occasions in March why it removed two journalists ? reporter Rachel Gordon and photographer Liz Mangelsdorf ? from that city's controversial gay marriage story after the two took part in their own gay wedding. "There are no secrets," Chronicle Managing Editor Robert J. Rosenthal explains. "The more people who understand what we do, the better off we'll be."



Guilty until proven innocent?

But are editors being swayed to react too strongly to what may be, in some cases, little more than poor reporting or honest mistakes? While few would argue against coming clean about a known fabricator or plagiarist, questions arise when newspapers start feeling the need to explain every journalistic miscue beyond the usual correction.

And have some newspapers gone too far in altering day-to-day policies and procedures during the past year?

At least a dozen papers have drawn up new or expanded ethics guidelines or reporting codes in the past 12 months. The New York Times led the way with a revised policy on the use of anonymous sources and attributions that requires at least one editor to know the identity of a confidential source. The Times also hired a public editor and a standards editor, both new positions.

"We looked at whether this will mean it is harder for us to get information we really need," Keller says about the new sourcing policy. "I have not yet seen a case of a legitimate news story that we didn't pursue because of that."

At The Washington Post, a similar policy review occurred, resulting in additional guidelines that require the identity of anonymous sources to be known to editors. The review also bans reporters from interviewing off the record. "I don't expect any problems in coverage," Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr. says of the new rules. "I think there will be skirmishes as our reporters try to get more on the record. You are seeing much fuller explanations of when things are not on the record."

In a survey of more than 400 newspapers by the American Society of Newspaper Editors last summer, 21% said they had implemented new policies in light of the Blair scandal, with more than 80% of them saying anonymous sources, plagiarism, corrections or conflict of interest were the key elements of the new code. More than half of those who set new policies said they would terminate an employee who violated them.

At several newsrooms, such as The Denver Post, The Seattle Times, The Buffalo (N.Y.) News, Chicago Tribune and USA Today, editors are instituting everything from new conflict-of-interest rules to procedures aimed at finding out if readers believe accuracy is being maintained. "The feeling was that we wanted it spelled out, we didn't have anything specifically written down," says Adell Crowe, staff development editor at USA Today, which created a new editorial ethics policy ? before the Kelley controversy broke ? that addresses rules for accepting free gifts, taking freelance assignments, quoting sources exactly, and using bylines and datelines in the most honest way.

The Denver Post ethics policy went from a one-page guideline to a 16-page manual, according to Moore. "It is really built on disclosure," he says. "There is a pretty hefty section on financial investments and community involvement." The guidelines warn staffers to avoid any activity that could create even the appearance that they made financial gains by acting on information gathered through reporting, tried to influence a company stock, or are so deeply invested in a company that reporting appears biased.

Other ethical policy changes include The News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., reviving a previous practice of seeking regular input about accuracy from sources named in stories. Each week, the Tacoma paper sends a letter to nine sources chosen randomly from its stories during the previous seven days asking if they were improperly quoted or if the story had any other problems.

"We found about half a dozen things in the past year [from this practice] that resulted in a correction or an apology to a source," says David Zeeck, the paper's executive editor. "It's a way to spot-check, and I think editors are more aware."

Last month, the Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram, started random fact-checking of articles after they appear. The Hartford (Conn.) Courant is among several newspapers taking background checks a step further by employing new plagiarism-detection software for Op-Ed pieces following revelations that the president of Central Connecticut State University lifted material from other sources for a column.



Cracking the codes

But with any new change in procedures, particularly at union-represented newsrooms, the fallout can be mixed.

While nearly every journalist would likely support improvements to ensure accuracy and objectivity, some union leaders say the new guidelines and standards are often being rammed down their members' throats too quickly and, in some cases, unfairly. "This whole burgeoning of ethics codes runs into problems," says Foley of the Newspaper Guild, which represents members at more than 100 papers, many of which are implementing new ethical controls. "A lot of them are subjected to collective bargaining and can't just be put into place."

One paper in Pennsylvania fired a reporter after accusations of plagiarizing from the Web, but could not complete the termination without going through the proper investigative process, Foley says, adding that the case is now headed for arbitration.

Guild executives also targeted some of the new policies, such as a provision in the proposed Seattle Times guidelines that, they say, indicated reporters could be considered in violation if their choice of friends created a potential conflict. "That is too restrictive," Kathy Mulvey, the guild's director of contract administration, says about the provision that was eliminated. "It could be too broad." Times officials did not return calls seeking comment.

Others question whether some of these guidelines are necessary, indicating that good reporters should know not to lie, steal, or put themselves in conflicting situations. "This is not rocket science," says Macarena Hernandez, the San Antonio Express-News reporter who gained fame when her editor, Robert Rivard, exposed Jayson Blair for plagiarizing a Hernandez story. "Any honest reporter with an ounce of common sense knows the guidelines under which you operate."



Throwing heat

But the scofflaws who have been caught breaking the rules are not the only journalists who have been affected by the post-Blair crackdown and ethical microscope. Seemingly honest journalists who have likely followed the rules all along say they too feel the heat, either from closer scrutiny of their work, new guidelines and restrictions on reporting, or backlash from the public. In many cases, the reporters don't mind the added precautions ? claiming it helps their reputation to increase accuracy ? but others say it has made life more complicated.

"We work harder to put people on the record who don't want to be. We have to be more vigilant," says Dan Balz, a national reporter for the Washington Post, commenting on the Post's recently tightened anonymous-sourcing rules.

Craig Rose, a reporter at The San Diego Union-Tribune and a former Guild unit chair, agrees, saying a new policy at his paper has also cut into the anonymous source use. "There is much more scrutiny, a higher threshold," he admits. "They are also back-checking stories more randomly. The paper does not want that kind of issue here."

For other journalists, knowing that their stories may be scrutinized more closely has forced them to think about re-checking the little things. "I've found myself taking much more care and double- and triple-checking things," says Ron Martz, a veteran reporter at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He's also using background stories from other publications less to avoid unknowingly repeating elements from the story. "I will not take a chance of putting in a phrase or a sentence that might resemble something someone else did."

Rex Bowman, a regional reporter at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, said he solicits more little details during interviews to avoid second-guessing later: "I've made more of a point of getting people's phone numbers just in case." Shelby Oppel, a higher education reporter at The Oregonian, called back a source quoted weeks earlier for a story that was held to make sure everything still checked out. "I hope I would have done that before, but I'm sure I would now," she says.

But John Hanchette, an associate professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure University and former Pultizer winner for Gannett, warns that too much focus on reporter's practices can backfire. "There is a point [at which] there is a chilling effect," he tells E&P. "If a reporter knows that every quote is going to be questioned, every nuance investigated, I think that will diminish enterprise."



Investing in public trust

Ben Bagdikian, author of the noted 1983 book The Media Monopoly, says recent ethical lapses do not indicate a rise in the plagiarism crime rate. "It is nothing new except that the public is much more aware of it," he says.

But John Seigenthaler, who spent more than 40 years at The Tennessean in Nashville ? including 20 years as editor and publisher ? strongly disagrees that little has changed over the years. "I've been astounded," says the veteran newsman, who has helped investigate Jack Kelley's misdeeds for USA Today. "Each of these incidents ... has served to sap some of the credibility of the media."

But Seigenthaler adds that newspapers are doing the right things to build back trust. "The disclosures and corrections will overcome that," he predicts.

Despite the intensive newsroom response to the perception ? or reality ? of shaky ethics, several editors report feedback from readers challenging their papers for being accurate or honest, or asking questions about how newsroom policies are being adjusted to avoid a Blair-like incident.

"When I go out and talk to a community group, I always get questions about Jayson Blair," says Margaret Sullivan, editor and vice president of the Buffalo News, which updated its ethics code within the past year.

A survey of 1,200 adults last summer by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed most respondents had a low opinion of the media following revelations about Blair. But results indicated those opinions had not changed much from a similar poll conducted prior to the Blair scandal, and the percentage who believed news organizations tried to cover up mistakes actually fell, from 67% in 2002 to 62% last year, indicating the Times' report on Blair may have helped its image.

"We still get people who are angry at the Times and wave Jayson Blair at us as a stick," the Times' Keller says. "But not nearly as much as before. I think we've gone a considerable distance in rebuilding the public trust."